The Egyptians had to train a long time to make a successful crossing in the Yom Kippur war. I think it's appropriate that this is treated like a water crossing.
Suez Crossing
In this game, the Suez canal is too wide and should be crossable like it is land. This is because it is narrow at only 250 metres wide today and is easily crossable in a small boat as the shores are very low, at least in some parts. I have not studied the canal's shore line in great detail.
See some images below. They are as follows:
cow.png - Suez canal in Call of War
cow2.png - Suez canal in real life
cow3.png - Suez canal shore line and a bridge
The canal should still be in game but just a lot easier to cross/does not require a crossing.
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
12 Replies
Meh. In real life, I think there is defenses on its banks. Weather there is or isn't, no one I have ever played against has put units on the coast to defend the canal. Even if the crossing is fine with other people, it takes what, like 7-8 hours to cross 250 metres of water? Also, the canal is too wide on the map.
Here is a picture of the Suez canal on google maps. The marker is Suez itself.
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
The map is only an abstract representation, what does it matter if the canal is rendered wider than in real life? In real life, cities don't appear as dots either, and roads aren't a network of straight lines.
Still, the Suez canal in this looks massive and natural. It is just awfully silly.
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
But if it was small you'd barely be able to see it.
Meh.
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
I agree, there is little negative effect in game to incorporate this real life example.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
The canal should still be in game but just a lot easier to cross/does not require a crossing.
It would not require a rebalance, and as it stands when playing as U.K. it is ineffective.
Crossings of this type add an extra dimension to gameplay. I'm in favour of retaining them, in fact, I would like to see more terrain features.
More terrain features are nice, but canals acting like sea's aren't nice. I mean, Ireland has a fair amount of canals and I think I learned in history that England is riddled with canals for barges from the Industrial Revolution. Would you really like to cross all these in landing craft? Maybe have a ship or two to ferry your troops across the few meters of water?
I think jungles and rivers(much bigger than canals and have a flow, making crossing harder) but only big rivers, not something like the Boyne in Ireland. Some good rivers might be ones like the Dnieper or the Rhine(in Russia and Germany respectively).
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
It's 200 metres wide. That seems more than wide enough to present a significant water obstacle to me.
Not to me. During Market Garden they could cross a river in a couple minutes under enemy fire at night. I think we could do it here just as fast.
Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!
I agree that the area needs a canal zone benefit. The crossing should keep your army's pace normal (or 90%?) BUT it should only be in effect when you control both adjacent provinces.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.